Case law

Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Franchise Tax Board

10 Cal. App. 3d 496 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1970

(Butler Bros. v. McColgan, supra, at p. 678; Superior Oil Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, supra, at p. 412.) … (Standard Register Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 259 Cal.App.2d 125, 129-130 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 803 ]; Household Finance Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, 230 Cal.App.2d 926, 930 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 565 ]; Montgomery Ward & Co. v.

Anaheim General Hospital v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board

3 Cal. App. 3d 468 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 1970

The Board issued its Opinion and Order Denying Reconsideration. … In Pruitt v. Workmen’s Comp. App.

Glover v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

231 Cal. App. 3d 203 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1991

(Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 31 Cal.3d 124, 135 [ 181 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 642 P.2d 792 ].) … (Rivard v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 405, 412-413 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 509 ].)

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

247 Cal. App. 4th 284 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 2016

No. 13CECG03374) v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents. … Proc., § 906.; see, e.g., Leone v. Medical Board (2000) 22 Cal.4th 660, 666; Sanborn v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1940) 42 Cal.App.2d 99, 105.)

McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force

36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 47 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 2005

(Torres v. Board of Commissioners (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 545, 549-550 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 506 ].) The parties implicitly, and correctly, agree that in order for L.A. … Impact’s board of directors and executive council are legislative bodies, 5 whose meetings are subject to the Brown Act. *363 Alternatively, the Brown Act applies to L.A.

Grasko v. Los Angeles City Board of Education

31 Cal. App. 3d 290 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 1973

(Berkeley Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education, 254 Cal. … (Heckley v. Board of Education, 53 Cal.2d 218, 220-221 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 347 P.2d 4 ]; Holbrook v. Board of Education, 37 Cal.2d 316, 331-332 [ 231 P.2d 853 ]; Rible v.

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

181 Cal. App. 4th 752 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2010

The stipulation was entered as an order by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). … (See Ferdig v.

First City Bank v. Franchise Tax Board

70 Cal. App. 3d 444 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 7, 1977

. * Plaintiff First City Bank (hereinafter First City) appeals from a summary judgment denying its claim for a $4,999 tax refund paid to respondent Franchise Tax Board (hereinafter Board). … Corp. v.

Chevrolet Motor Division v. New Motor Vehicle Board

146 Cal. App. 3d 533 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 25, 1983

The requirement that four of the Board’s members be new car dealers was not changed. In American Motor Sales Corp. v. … Unlike agency staff, the dealer Board members have a financial stake in every dealer-manufacturer dispute which comes before the Board. (American Motors Sales Corp. v.

Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry

68 Cal. App. 2d 440 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1945

In October, 1938, the plaintiff was charged before the defendant board with violations of sections 3098 and 3125 of the Business and Professions Code. … (Laisne v. California St. Bd. of Optometry, 19 Cal.2d 831 [ 123 P.2d 457 ].)

Nicky Blair's Restaurant v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

109 Cal. App. 3d 941 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1980

In the absence of ‘good cause,’ the appeals board is powerless to act. (Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. Indus. A.C. (1936) 6 Cal.2d 314, 315-317 [ 57 P.2d 501 ].) … (Gay v. Workers’ Comp.

Garcia v. Los Angeles County Board of Education

123 Cal. App. 3d 807 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 1981

Board of Permit Appeals (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 525, 544-545, fn. 15 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 26 ]), whether the time provisions relate to matters of convenience or substance (Francis v. … In 1975 the United States Supreme Court in Goss v.

Patterson v. Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles

79 Cal. App. 2d 670 · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 1947

And, under the holding in Ware v. … Admitting that “There seems to he a, great dearth of cases upon this particular point,” the appellant has cited Montgomery Ward & Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 103 F.2d 147, 149 .

Save Mart Stores v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

3 Cal. App. 4th 720 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1992

The findings and conclusions of the Board on questions of fact are conclusive and final so long as, based on the entire record, they are supported by substantial evidence. (LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. App. … However, we are not bound by the Board’s conclusions on questions of law; where the award rests on an erroneous interpretation of law, it will be annulled. (Barns v. Workers’ Comp.

Sharareh v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 147 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2007

(d); see also City of Oakland v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 261, 264 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 873 ].) … Courts will find an implicit waiver only where a party’s acts “ ‘are so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the right as to induce a reasonable belief that such right has been relinquished.’ ” (Waller v. Truck Ins.

Universal Engineering Co. v. State Board of Equalization

118 Cal. App. 2d 36 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1953

McColgan, 34 Cal.2d 731, 739 [ 215 P.2d 4 ]; Coca-Cola Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 25 Cal.2d 918 [ 156 P.2d 1 ], and cases cited therein. … State Board of Equalization, supra.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

87 Cal. App. 3d 336 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 15, 1978

Record v. Indemnity Ins. … Co. v. Industrial Acc.

Castaic Lake v. Newhall Co. Water Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2015

(Ibid., italics added.) 6 The Bagley-Keene Act is the state counterpart to the Brown Act, which applies to local agencies. (Southern California Edison Co. v. … Where, as here, the facts are undisputed, the question of whether the action taken complied with the Brown Act is one of law, to be reviewed de novo. (Furtado v.

Schwarzburd v. Kensington Police Protection & Community Services District Board

225 Cal. App. 4th 1345 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2014

While amicus curiae argues that petitioners laudably seek to enforce the Brown Act and the Board’s own open meeting requirements, it is undisputed that the Brown Act has no application to this case.6 Further, the assertion … (See Holbrook v.

Townsel v. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 231 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1998

In Cleveland Board of Education v. … (Ibid.; see also Browning v.